Preamble

The House met at Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Royal Exchange Assurance Bill [Lords].

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Darlington Corporation Bill [Lords].

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Torquay and Paignton Traction Bill [Lords], (Certified Bill).

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Tuesday next.

PERSONS IN RECEIPT OF POOR LAW RELIEF IN ENGLAND AND WALES.

Return ordered,
showing the number of persons in receipt of Poor Law relief in England and Wales on the night of the 1st day of January, 1930 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 114, of Session 1929)."—[Mr. Greenwood.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Commander Sir BOLTON EYRES MONSELL: Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury state what business will be taken on Monday?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. T. Kennedy): On Monday, the Vote for the Ministry of Health will be put down in Committee of Supply, and, if time permits, opportunity will be given for discussion of a Motion dealing with the question of the Channel Tunnel.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. FREDERICK HALL reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C: Mr. Bracken, Mr. William Brown, Major Llewellin, Mr. Morley, and Sir James Reynolds; and had appointed in substitution: Brigadier-General Clifton Brown, Mr. Ede, Viscount Lymington, Mr. Muggeridge, and Sir Douglas Newton.

Report to lie upon the Table.

LAND DRAINAGE (No. 2) [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend and consolidate the enactments relating to the drainage of land and for purposes in connection with such amendment, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of grants of such amounts as the Treasury may sanction towards expenditure incurred by catchment boards under the said Act in the improvement of existing works or the construction of new works, and, subject to the approval of the Treasury, of advances on account of any such expenditure about to be incurred by catchment boards.
Provided that—

(i) no grants shall be made towards expenditure incurred in connection with any such improvement or construction unless the plans and sections therefor have been approved by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Minister is satisfied that the work thereon has been properly carried out; and
(ii) all such grants and advances shall be made, subject to such conditions as may, with the approval of the Treasury, be prescribed by regulations made by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries."—(King's recommendation signified).

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): This Financial Resolution was referred to in the discussion on the Second Reading of the Land Drainage (No. 2) Bill, when I stated that a Clause had been drafted and would be introduced in the Bill following very closely the words of the Financial Resolution. I should like to express my appreciation of the help that was given to us by the Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill, and to express my thanks to the right hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Guinness) for his helpful intervention. The principles underlying the Financial Resolution are fairly clear, but one or two points may possibly give rise to differences of opinion. The principle that we recognise is that in connection with this work there must be national grants. It is not a new principle to have national grants in aid of drainage schemes. There are in operation to-day other kinds of drainage schemes on which
the Ministry is giving grants of 50 per cent., or on some other basis.
I think it is recognised, as was set forth by the Royal Commission, that if this important work, which is not only of a local, but of a national character, is to be taken in hand there must be some national contributions in aid. There is another reason why that should be the case. A number of authorities would not be disposed to undertake the very considerable task which will be required unless they do receive some national assistance. A point which has given rise to a good deal of question in our discussions with the local authorities is whether a certain Section in the Local Government Act of 1929 does not in fact cover the service that is proposed to be undertaken by the new bodies. Section 135 of the Local Government Act, 1929, refers to assistance being given to local authorities in the event of new services being placed upon them. It is suggested that this is a new service. I understand that among the legal experts various -questions have arisen as to whether this is or is not a new service. Whether it ranks as a new service or not within the meaning of that Section, we resolve that to-day by deliberately bringing forward a Resolution to enable the Government to make contribution. Therefore, so far as that question is concerned, it is largely academic.
The important principle in the Financial Resolution and in the Clause of which it will form the foundation, is that no specific proportion of grant is mentioned. The Clause which we propose to put down will embody the provision that
Subject to the provisions of this Section the Minister may, out of moneys provided by Parliament, make grants towards expenditure incurred by Catchment Boards under this Act in the improvement of existing works or the construction of new works, of such amounts as the Treasury may from time to time sanction.
It is also provided that no grant shall be made unless the scheme is properly carried out, and so on. That Clause does not mention any specific proportion of grant to be made in each case, and the reason is because the extent of the undertakings in different areas bears little relation in ninny cases to the capacity of the district to pay for them. If we had a flat rate, it
might well be that in a poor area the burden would be impossible, whereas in a well-to-do area it would be almost imperceptible. The House will appreciate the importance of that provision if I give them a few figures which have been worked out to illustrate these inequalities. Let us take the charges arising out of works costing £100,000 as a unit. In the case of the Thames catchment area the cost of interest and sinking fund for 50 years on a scheme costing £100,000 would be a rate of one-tenth of a penny. In the Great Ouse district, in Cambridge and Norfolk, the cost would be a little less than a halfpenny rate.

Sir ERNEST SHEPPERSON: Is that halfpenny on the precept in the upland area, or including the whole area?

Dr. ADDISON: The whole catchment area, the area over which the Catchment Board will operate and over which it will levy its precept. I am making calculations on a unit of works costing £100,000 to illustrate the differences in the various areas and to show why we have not made a flat rate proposal in the Financial Resolution. In the Thames catchment area the rate would be one-tenth of a penny. In the Great Ouse area it would amount to 44 of a penny, or a little less than one halfpenny, and in the Stour area, Essex and Suffolk, it would cost 7d. It is clear, therefore, that what would be fair for one area would be entirely inequitable in another. The burden is 70 times greater in the Stour area than in the Thames area.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: Is that for 30 years?

Dr. ADDISON: No, for 50 years. In the Clwyd area in Wales, the cost would be 4½d., and in the Romney Marsh, where works are very necessary, the cost would be rather over 9d. If hon. Members want particulars of the other catchment areas I can supply them from the table from which I am quoting. These figures are sufficient to show that when there is a variation from one-tenth of a penny in the Thames catchment area to rather over 9d. in the region of Romney Marsh for works involving the same capital expenditure, the inequalities are very great, and could not be
fairly met by a flat rate contribution. That is the reason for the elasticity in the Resolution. I do not think I need enlarge upon that point because it is obvious. One other source of assistance which will be available for schemes of this kind is the unemployment grants scheme. This assistance will be continued as long as the unemployment grants scheme remains. It is open to authorities to apply for this assistance under appropriate conditions, and the Committee is aware that the Government has relaxed the conditions relating to transferred labour. Therefore, apart from this Financial Resolution, that avenue of assistance is still open and as long as the fund remains it will continue to be open.
There is an omission in the Financial Resolution in regard to maintenance and I notice that several hon. Members have put down an amendment on this point. I expected that the matter would be raised. The reason why it is not in the Bill is because at this stage, and for several years to come, we shall be quite in the dark as to what may be involved, and there will be plenty of opportunity to adjust this if in the future it is found that there is a fair claim for adjustment. There is no case now for committing ourselves in perpetuity to maintenance grants. Practically the whole of the work under this Bill is new work or the improvement of existing works, and on a moderate estimate it will be ten years during which the major portion of this expenditure will be incurred. For several years to come it will be a question of new construction and not a matter of maintenance and, therefore, it is obvious that at this stage the Government should not commit themselves to maintenance grants, although I have no doubt in the future local authorities will not be slow to bring the matter before the Government. I hope I have sufficiently explained the scheme of assistance designed in the Financial Resolution, which will be subsequently embodied in a Clause in the Bill, and I hope the Committee will approve of it.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Has the right. hon. Gentleman no solid figure as to the amount to which we are committing the country?

Dr. ADDISON: I gave some figures during the debate on the Second Reading, but they are extremely conjectural at this stage. I gave a figure as to the cost of the works in the Ouse area of £4,000,000, but I was called to task and a figure of £2,500,000 was mentioned. That figure, I understand, relates to a scheme which is only two-thirds of what the engineers tell us will be required. Areas like the Thames and the Ouse and the Trent will require schemes involving a large expenditure, but what the total amount will be I do not know, and I should be only misleading the Committee if I attempted to give an estimate. Until you have an estimate from the engineers, no useful purpose is served by attempting to give any figure as to the cost. It can be called for at any time.

Mr. GUINNESS: It is quite evident from the course of the discussion the other day that it is in accordance with the general wishes of all parties that assistance should be given from the Exchequer to these drainage areas. It is long overdue. The present system has involved great injustice by concentrating upon small and poor sections of the community what in reality, owing to the growth of civilisation which has accentuated the problem of drainage, is a national responsibility. I can understand the anxiety of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. Williams) because no figure is given as to the expenditure which will be incurred in connection with land drainage, but after all we shall have a very effective check as the money will have to be voted year by year. Strictly speaking the money could have been voted without any statutory sanction at all, and it is only to carry out the fullest precautions that the right hon. Gentleman is inserting this provision in the Bill. Obviously, you cannot get any definite figure as to what will be spent because of the very uncertain factors in the case. There is first the matter of survey. No one can really form an estimate to-day as to what will be the result of these surveys; and the amount of expenditure will necessarily depend upon what local authorities feel they are in a position to spend. The amount of assistance from the Exchequer is really the governing factor. The proposals for the Ouse broke down for various reasons, but finance played a really large part in the
difficulty. The Bill which was thrown out promised £1,250,000, but the authorities of the Ouse considered that the State should find a much larger sum. They were to find £1,600,000 outright and £600,000 in the way of a loan. I think it was 75 per cent. of the total that was to be treated as a loan.
All these transactions must be negotiated on the merits of each case and in view of the local resources. It is right that the locality, in view of the fact that it will be responsible for adminstration, should be primarily responsible for finance. It will be the duty of Parliament, in voting the money year by year, to see that a due proportion is kept between the assistance from central funds and the burden which in fairness should be borne by the local community, whether the ratepayers generally or the area that is to benefit. I think that this Resolution will assist the progress of the Bill in another place if an Amendment be made as to the date of commencement, as it is quite evident that the House of Lords were very much alarmed as to the burdens on the ratepayers and they certainly were strongly of opinion that assistance should be given from central funds. I do not quite agree with the very optimistic expectations which have been expressed as to what this Bill will do in relieving unemployment. When we considered this matter is months ago we came to the conclusion that the really costly works would not involve a great amount of labour. The big works would be done chiefly by mechanical means. The smaller works for the most part would be carried out by internal authorities; works on smaller dykes and so forth would involve only small parties of men. In any case in their total volume they are not such as offer any considerale contribution to the problem of transferring labour from black spot areas.
That matter of the work which will be done in the smaller areas draws my attention to what appears to be a curious limitation in the Resolution. There is no power in the Resolution to give assistance to authorities other than catchment boards. I quite appreciate that the Minister need not have taken this power at all, and that he is doing it only to re-solve any doubts, but I do not quite understand why he should limit the Resolution in this way. We all know that in certain areas there is an ascend-
ing scale of responsibility in these drainage authorities. It is a question of the big flea and the little flea and then of the lesser flea, though not perhaps ad infinitum. We know that great works have been carried out in the Ouse area with public assistance by important but intermediate authorities. In a debate the other day it was stated that over £300,000 worth of capital works were now being carried out by that very efficient authority the Middle Level Commission.
Is it intended that this Bill shall not provide assistance from the central fund for any work which is not carried out by a catchment authority? I cannot believe that that is the intention. I do not want to prejudge the issues at this stage. I imagine that there will be so much work done to cover the neglected part of the main arteries of drainage that at least in the first instance it may be wise to limit the assistance from the central funds to works of a capital character. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether he does intend to limit the grants to catchment boards. I think it would be safer to draw the Resolution a little wider so as to cover all authorities which, after negotiation with the Minister, are found to be doing work of an important character.

Sir E. SHEPPERSON: I want the Minister clearly to understand that I do not by any means oppose this Resolution. In fact he may look upon me as rather a too ardent supporter of the Resolution. I can assure him that in bringing forward this Resolution to give assistance for drainage purposes from the State, the Minister will receive the gratitude of the agricultural community. I wish to remove any misunderstanding that might occur with regard to grants to internal drainage. I refer to the small internal districts, which are the first unit in the drainage system. The large drainage area of the Middle Level has been very generously assisted by the State and by the Minister. Whenever we have come up before the Minister and his Department on our knees, pleading for help, we have always been treated not only sympathetically but have never gone away empty, and I want now to express my gratitude.
The purpose of my Amendment, which I have on the Paper, is certainly not to oppose the Bill, but to help the Minister
to remove an obstruction in the way of the fulfilment of his desire. As I have said, when I and others have come to the Government the Government have been sympathetic and desirous of helping. They have been all kindness to us; we have left the Board of Agriculture smiling, with the sun shining and everybody happy. We have then been sent to the Treasury. The atmosphere of the Treasury is vastly different from that of the Ministry of Agriculture. Hon Members must have recognised the great pleasure with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer closes his lips and says, "Certainly not!" I am not suggesting that when we go to the Treasury we meet the Chancellor himself, but I do suggest that in the Treasury there is a "certainly not" atmosphere, and my purpose is to try to remove that atmosphere and to get the Treasury to be a little more lenient towards the desires of the Minister himself.
I want to see the best use made of these grants. It is held that if we were to remove the restrictions from these grants it would necessarily involve an increased cost to the State, but I do not think that such is the case. The Minister and I have within our knowledge a certain scheme on the middle level system in connection with which a considerable amount of work had been done in putting up new pumps. The engineer estimated that the scheme would cost £80,000. I suggested that help should be sought from the Minister for the scheme and help was promised by the Minister if we assented to certain conditions. Those conditions involved a great deal of extra work because it was said that the place where we had put up the pumps was not suitable, and in consequence it was found that the cost instead of being £80,000 might be from £160,000 to £200,000. Had it not been for the restrictions put upon us, a very considerable saving would have been made in that case.

The CHAIRMAN: Is the hon. Member now arguing on the first two Amendments in his name on the Paper—in line 6, after the word "improvement," to insert the words "and maintenance," and after the second word "works" to insert the words "or for Administration purposes"?—If so, I must point out that those Amendments are out of order.

Sir E. SHEPPERSON: I was referring to the Resolution as a whole. The Minister has rightly said that he has no idea of the total sum which will be involved and that it may amount to £50,000,000. My desire is to make the most effective use possible of that money, and that is my only purpose in making a plea to the Minister for a further extension of these grants. I should like your guidance, Mr. Young, on this matter. You have ruled that the Amendments on the Paper are out of Order, but I believe that it is possible for the Minister to withdraw this Resolution and put another Resolution before the Committee covering the points which I desire to raise. I do not know, therefore, if I should be in Order in mentioning the reasons for which I desire the removal from this Resolution of the restrictions with regard to maintenance and so forth.

The CHAIRMAN: On a Money Resolution the hon. Member cannot discuss anything beyond the expenditure with which the Resolution is concerned. He can ask the Minister to withdraw the Resolution, but it must rest there.

Sir E. SHEPPERSON: In asking the Minister to withdraw the Resolution, may I not mention the reasons why I should like him to withdraw it?

The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member has indicated the reasons in his two Amendments, but they are out of Order and he cannot argue on them.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: On a point of Order. The grants under the Resolution are subject to certain restrictions, and as the Minister gave reasons in connection with those restrictions, may we not reply to his reasons?

The CHAIRMAN: We are confined to the Money Resolution, and I understand that the Minister merely gave certain information to hon. Members to abridge discussion and prevent the raising of matters which would be out of Order on the Resolution.

Sir E. SHEPPERSON: I am placed in a very difficult position, because I cannot seek to remove these restrictions when the Bill comes up for discussion again, as we shall then be bound by the Financial Resolution, and, therefore, I am deprived of any opportunity of making
my point. However, I bow to the Ruling of the Chair. The Minister may ask why I 'am apparently opposing this Resolution. We have had considerable experience of administration with regard to drainage, and a few years ago we had before us the Ouse Drainage Board Bill, which we did not seriously oppose, and which has since become law. We recognise to-day that on that occasion we were offered a pup and that we bought the pup and the pup has turned out to be a mongrel. We wonder are we being offered another pup and will this pup turn out to be a pure bred animal and will it function? These are the doubts that we have, and I want to assure the Minister that, having been bitten once, we are going to vet the animal on this occasion very carefully indeed.
We in the lowland counties look upon drainage taxes as a form of insurance, but if the taxes are increased beyond a certain point, the premiums become too high and in order to keep the taxes down, I appeal for generous treatment. The cost of this Bill as far as it is not met by the Treasury grant or by the rate of a halfpenny or three-farthings in the upland areas, will fall upon the lowland areas, but if the Minister can assure me that we shall be limited to any figure like 1s. per acre or even 1s. 6d. per acre as our contribution, then our fears will be very largely allayed. I appeal to the Minister to be as generous as he can and to do something in this matter to assist the great agricultural community.

Mr. STRACHEY: I rise to ask the Minister a few questions as to the actual conditions on the grants which were mentioned by him in submitting this Money Resolution. I think we are all agreed that the question of whether any consider_ able amount of work will be done, turns on the exact relationship between the Treasury and the new local authorities which are being set up, and on the establishment of a workable system. In spite of the remark, of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Guinness) as to the limitation of the employment which will be given under this Bill, we attach considerable value to it as an employment-giving scheme.

The CHAIRMAN: I was on the point of calling the right hon. Gentleman him
self to order when he proceeded to go into that matter. This subject does not arise on the Money Resolution.

Mr. STRACHEY: I have no intention of going on with that. As far as I understood the Minister, we are to have no scale of grants whatever, no guiding principle in the conditions of grants which are to be made to these new authorities, but there is to be complete elasticity in the matter. That may sound on the whole satisfactory, but I rather wonder whether in fact it will lead to an expedition of the work. After all, what it will lead to in practice is a completely new bargain between the Treasury and the local authorities in each individual case, with no guiding principle between the two bodies as to the amount of grant which the local authorities may expect, and I wonder whether that is not likely to be protractive rather than expeditious for the lack of some principle of that sort. The Minister has told us of the great disparity between the financial resources of the different catchment areas, but surely the fact that the rate levied in a poorer catchment area will produce so much less means that the value of the land to be reclaimed will be considerably less also, and therefore that lower expenditure would be undertaken in such an area.
Again, I cannot quite follow why we are having a whole new set of grants established for these catchment areas. Why are not the grants simply going to be given under Unemployment Grants Committee conditions? One very important question with which the right hon. Gentleman did not deal is whether these catchment areas will be eligible for grants of both kinds—the Unemployment Grants Committee grants and these new grants which we are establishing under the Financial Resolution. I presume that can hardly be the case, but from what the Minister said, one might suppose that it was. Then I want to raise once again a quesion which I asked on the Second Reading of this Bill, and to which I received no answer. That was the question as to what transfer conditions there would be under these new grants. The Minister told us that transfer is to be relaxed in the matter of Unemployment Grants Committee grants, and I think we are very likely to hear—

Dr. ADDISON: They do not apply at all.

Mr. STRACHEY: The Minister says they do not apply at all, so there will be no question of transfer. I think we shall be very glad to hear that, and that will be a very valuable concession, of which we shall take notice. In conclusion, I feel, as a person who has had some very slight experience of the way in which these grants to local authorities work, that it is rather a pity that we are establishing a new system of Treasury grants to local authorities. We have an immensely complicated system of grants now. Local authorities get Treasury grants through the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Agriculture, and the Unemployment Grants Committee, all with different conditions, all applying to different kinds of work, but very often overlapping. Surely it is time we tried to make same codification of our system of Treasury grants to local authorities, rather than establishing a new form of grant to a new form of local authority, as we are doing under this Financial Resolution.
I cannot help feeling that the administration of this new system, cutting across the Unemployment Grants Committee grants, but, as we have been told, with those grants applicable to these new local authorities, so that they can, I suppose, apply either for one of these new grants or for an Unemployment Grants Committee grant, will lead to very considerable administrative difficulties and will really delay the work getting going. I would appeal to the Minister to give his attention to that question and to see whether some simplification cannot be introduced into the procedure by which he will make the grants for this work.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: As a rule, I do not like these Money Resolutions in which no limit is laid down, but from what the Minister has said it is obvious that it is impossible to make any real estimate in this case, and I think there are ample checks provided. I am very glad indeed that the Minister has brought forward this Resolution, because it would have been unfair if the Government, through some legal quibble, had refused to give any grants for this work. The Minister mentioned the question of giving a specific propor-
tion of grant. I will not enlarge upon that subject, but I would like to ask him to reconsider this question. We do not ask for a definite proportion to be laid down, but we do ask for a minimum proportion to be laid down. It is a matter on which the county councils are very uneasy. They feel that they ought to have a grant for maintenance and administration and a minimum grant of 50 per cent. both for administration and maintenance and capital expenditure. Therefore, I would ask the Minister whether he will not give further consideration to that question.

Mr. EDE: I wish to know exactly what relationship the grants under this Bill will bear to certain special grants which have been made for special works carried out recently—works that will be carried out, after the passing of the Bill, presumably by the catchment area boards. Some few weeks ago I introduced a deputation to the Minister of Agriculture with regard to the river Thames and one of its tributaries from a couple of county councils, those of Middlesex and Surrey, which have undertaken very heavy works, at very heavy expense to themselves, assisted by a Government grant. Those works will have to be paid for over a period of 30 years. At the moment the Government are giving grants, I think it is, of 75 per cent. for the first 15 years and 37½ per cent. for the next 15 years. I desire to know whether, under this Bill, those grants will be absorbed in the general grants paid to the Thames catchment area board, and whether the expenses that have been incurred up to the present, because these grants have been made, by the Surrey and Middlesex County Councils will continue to be ordinary expenses of those two county councils, or whether they will pass over and become part of the expenses of the new Thames catchment area board, to be charged to the area as a whole. There was no possibility of doing that when these grants were originally applied for.
I also want to know how far these new obligations that the county councils have taken on become the obligations in future, ranking for grant, of the catchment area board that is formed. I tried to raise this point the other day on the Second Reading, but no reply at all was vouch-
safed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade When these matters were brought before him. I would like to have had an answer then, so as not to have found it necessary to intervene again to-day
There is one other matter I would like to mention in conclusion. I am desirous of seeing money spent under this Bill. I want to see a very considerable scheme of land drainage carried out but I cannot help thinking that, as far as the Thames area is concerned, the constitution of the Board will prevent the Minister from making any grants, because I cannot but imagine that the Board as it is constituted, with the tremendous influence the right hon. Gentleman is giving to London, will prevent a satisfactory scheme for the Thames being brought forward. If this scheme is meant to put people to work and to drain the land, I think the attitude which the London County Council has assumed up to the present, and which they voiced to the right hon. Gentleman in my presence, namely, that they have no intention of allowing us to spend any money and get any of these grants until they have carried through a comprehensive scheme dealing with flood prevention in which they talked about having to raise the walls 18 inches, will prevent the effective drainage of the Thames area. I do ask him, if he desires, as I believe he does, to see the Thames area properly drained, men put to work and grants paid, to bear that in mind when he considers, as he said he may consider, increased representation of the London County Council.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: The question I put just now raised, I think, a most important consideration. I fail to see how we as a Committee of the House of Commons, in passing this Financial Resolution, can possibly in any circumstances be doing our duty unless we get some line of proportion and amount of money to be expended. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Guinness), speaking as the late Minister of Agriculture, naturally tried to reassure me on that point, but I venture to think, with all respect, that if he had spoken as a late Financial Secretary, he would have emphasised the appallingly loose position in which the Government are in this respect. We are being asked
to-day to consider the financial position of the various local authorities. As a Member of Parliament, I am sent here to consider the financial position of the State as a whole, and when we are asked to make contributions of this sort, I cannot help remembering that the financial position of the State as a whole is at least as bad as that of any local authority from a purely financial point of view. Therefore, I do think it is an absolutely false argument to say that we must only consider this question from the point of view of the local authorities themselves.
12 n.
The Minister himself said that in certain cases the contribution of the local authority would be small, and he gave as an instance the case of the Ouse, the percentage of which on a £100,000 basis would be only a halfpenny rate. The curious point is that as the debate has proceeded, we have been told that in this wealthy area, as the Minister said—I am not accepting it as a wealthy area, but he told us it was a comparatively wealthy area, though I take no part in that particular controversy—the proportion of the £4,000,000 that was to be granted by the State was £1,250,000 or about 30 per cent. at least. That is on the assumption of a total of £4,000,000 being expended. If we may carry on from that, then where is a halfpenny rate, apparently, the cost is going to be 30. per cent. If any line of proportion is taken on the figures given to-day, it is quite clear in the case of the Romney Marsh that the whole cost of construction will have to be paid by the State, and also the cost of upkeep for all time. The only argument we can assume from the Minister's speech is that you have got to pay in many cases the whole grant if you are to be fair both to the wealthy and to the poorer districts. There is a further point. The Minister informed us that under this scheme there would be also a contribution from the unemployment grants. May I inquire whether the figure mentioned of £1,250,000 is a direct Exchequer contribution under this Financial Resolution, or whether it comes partly from an Exchequer contribution and partly from an unemployment scheme of drainage? If it comes from both, I think that we are entitled to know the proportion which comes from the unemployment scheme, for, unless we know
the proportion, we have absolutely no guide of any sort as to what amount is to be paid under this Bill.
I have raised these points because I think it is essential on these occasions that, at any rate, one Member of Parliament, if no more, should take the point of view, which has always been the point of view of the House, that we must know what we are voting under a Financial Resolution. I would have liked to have seen an Amendment put down limiting the annual cost under this Bill to some reasonable sum, say, up to a maximum of £500,000 which would have been a fair and reasonable contribution for the Exchequer to face at the present time. We know that the Thames Valley scheme and the Ouse area are larger schemes which run into many millions of pounds, and if I remember the approximate figures, the Romney Marsh scheme is nothing like the same amount. The smaller places would need a comparatively small amount of money, even if we gave them them the whole sum to do the work. It does seem typical of the laxity of the Treasury control which has applied far too long. I do not wish to be invidious. There has been a laxity of Treasury control in this House ever since the War. We have never got back to the proper system of absolute financial control by the Treasury.
This Money Resolution is the worst example that we have had in all these years, for no fixed sum is mentioned, and the Minister has said that he cannot give us a rough idea of what it may be. I know that he cannot give us the figures for the various schemes which have still to be settled, but he could tell the taxpayer that he would limit it to £500,000 or £1,000,000 and not go beyond that without another Financial Resolution. I do not wish to hold up these schemes, because there is much good in them, but this loose system is wrong. By this Resolution the Treasury are dropping their control, and we are setting up an entirely new system of grants and adding complication to an already complicated system. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade shakes his head. All I can say is that his battle is with his own side, and with the hon. Member who brought forward that point. At times such as this, it is essential that the whole financial system of the country
should be preserved with the greatest resolution on the part of the Treasury to see that money is not spent unless it is absolutely necessary. With that in my mind, I protest very strongly against this Resolution.
In case there should be any doubt or misrepresentation about the attitude which I take, I would point out that I say this without any desire to hold up these works, but because I am sure that this is not the right way to do it. With this kind of Resolution, we shall sooner or later have the House suddenly turn round and stop expenditure everywhere regardless of consequences. The Minister knows what that means better than I do. I do not oppose the individual schemes, because I have no knowledge of them, but the way in which we are being asked to pass this Financial Resolution without any form of check as to the amount which is to be expended. In the interests of employment in particular, we should take the strong line, and not allow so many of these Financial Resolutions to pass without any protest or discussion.

Mr. WELLS: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) that there should be some limit in the Financial Resolution before the Committee, for the amounts on these schemes vary so much. We get a little information from the Minister from time to time; we had a little information on Tuesday, and we have had just a little more to-day. I understood from the Minister that he had a list showing the probable expenditure for a great many areas. I do not ask him to give any details, but I should be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary could tell us the total which it is expected to spend on drainage. This Bill is called a Land Drainage Bill; to my mind it is more a flood prevention Bill. With regard to the River Ouse, the Minister told us the other day that the cost of the scheme in that area would be £4,000,000. In 1924 the cost was estimated at £1,500,000; in 1927 a large area was included, and the estimate was £2,500,000; in 1930 we have an estimate of £4,000,000. So it goes on, and I suppose that in another two years, especially if the work is started, the estimate will be increased to £6,000,000 or £7,000,000
I understand that the money is to be spent on the Ouse mouth, and that draining walls are to be carried out into the Wash for five miles. They will be carried out into shallow water, but at the end of the walls there will still be shallow water not deeper than one foot and a half at lowest tide. The Minister told us that King John lost his baggage in the Wash; how much baggage will we lose in the Wash before we are finished with these works? I remember reading some time ago of certain gentlemen adventurers who, in the 17th Century, risked an enormous sum of money to drain the Fen area of the Ouse; I believe that it was £100,000. They spent their money, and they got nothing for it. We are asked to-day to spend enormous sums of money at the mouth of the Ouse, and I do not think that we shall get anything for it either. There was a scheme at one time for taking a bank right across the Wash——

The CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that we are not dealing with the Bill now. We cannot improve the Bill on the Money Resolution, and these questions must be raised on the Committee stage.

Mr. WELLS: The Minister has spoken of a sinking fund. I was trying to find out where the money was going to be sunk. I am sorry that the first Amendment was not accepted, because it deals with work and maintenance, and I thought that it might appeal very much to the Minister——

The CHAIRMAN: It cannot be accepted; therefore it is not in order to discuss it.

Mr. WELLS: I hope that we shall be able to raise that point in Committee in due course. I understand that the work in the Great Ouse area will need only a halfpenny rate for each £100,000 spent. It is proposed to spend £4,000,000, and I am sure that that will need for the whole catchment area a much larger rate. In regard to the general expenditure of the local authorities, Parliament is always increasing their burdens. The Government give as little as possible, but, even if they give a great deal, the expenditure only comes out of another pocket. We are putting a heavier burden on the taxpayer by this Bill. We hear a good deal about depression in
industry, and yet Parliament keeps on increasing the burdens and making it more difficult for industry to revive.

Mr. MARCH: One or two questions arise in connection with this Money Resolution, and the finance to be supplied to the catchment boards, and I should like a little further information. The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Wells) said that he thought this would be a flood prevention Bill. I wish it were, but I rather doubt it. By the drainage of the areas that it is supposed to drain, it will make the flooded areas, especially in my district, worse than they are at the present time. Is provision made for catchment boards in the lower reaches of the Thames?

The CHAIRMAN: We cannot discuss the Bill at this stage. The hon. Member must raise that question on the Bill. The question now is the charge upon the Treasury and that alone.

Mr. MARCH: But there is a charge on the Treasury in respect of the grants to the catchment boards. The catchment boards operate over certain areas, and I want to know whether those areas are properly covered by the catchment boards. It does not seem to me that they are.

The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member thinks the areas are not properly covered he can put down an Amendment to the Bill, but the point cannot be discussed at this stage.

Mr. MARCH: I will put down an Amendment.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: In my constituency there is a considerable area of low-lying land which has suffered terribly in the past from the absence of the provisions in this Bill. On hundreds of acres of land lying in small districts alongside the rivers Lune and Wyre submersion has taken place as a result of inadequate drainage, and the districts affected are quite unable to protect themselves because, apparently, difficulties have arisen at the river mouth, and with the wash from the roads, and so forth. I think these provisions will go a long way to remedying what has been an intolerable situation. For that reason I am a supporter of these proposals, though not perhaps such an ardent supporter as the hon. Member who sits below me, because
I am affected with the parsimonious tendencies of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams).
There is a point in connection with the expenditure which I should like to put to the Minister of Agriculture. I quite appreciate that he cannot at this stage estimate what we are in for; in a big scheme of this nature it is impossible to forecast accurately the commitments of the State; but it seems to me that we might impose certain limits, and one should be that such grants as are to be given by the State should be confined to the benefiting of existing agricultural areas and not devoted to reclamation work with the idea of bringing more land into a condition in which it can be cultivated. Such a limitation would affect a considerable saving, and until the right hon. Gentleman has taught us how to make farming pay we ought to concentrate upon the existing agricultural land and not seek to bring more land into cultivation at a time when farming cannot be made to pay. I will not touch on the question of unemployment, because I think that would be out of Order, but I would like to know whether under this money Resolution it would be competent for the Minister to make grants for smallholdings the occupants of which could be guaranteed work in connection with drainage schemes.

The CHAIRMAN: That is obviously outside the scope of the money Resolution. This has nothing to do with smallholdings.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Possibly it may not have occurred to the Minister, but in certain areas there are smallholdings on which willows are planted. The effect of planting these willows is conducive to the good drainage of the land. Would it be in order for my hon. Friend to follow up the point on those lines only?

The CHAIRMAN: We should have to see whether it is for the catchment boards to encourage that work.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I will not pursue that point any further now, possibly I shall have an opportunity to do so later. I will merely repeat that I support the Bill and that I think it is a good one, and I congratulate the Minister on having at last taken a step towards benefiting the agricultural community.

Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: The Minister has given us some interesting figures, but has left out the most interesting one which was asked for by my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte) and that is the minimum proportion of the expenses of the work in the various districts which will be found. The Minister has mentioned a scheme for the Thames Valley the interest and sinking fund for which would cost £100,000 for 50 years and involve a rate of 1/10th of a penny. He has also said that certain works are urgently needed in the Thames Valley, in the Ouse district, and so on. What we need in the Thames Valley is, as far as possible, to prevent flooding. Any scheme for the prevention of floods would cost £9,000,000, and on the basis given by the right hon. Gentleman that would mean a 9d. rate, which is alarming to the counties affected. If we were given 75 per cent. of the annual cost of the scheme that would mean that this catchment area would bear a rate of 2¼d. One can very well understand now why the Minister refuses to accept the limit which was imposed by the House of Lords. The late Minister of Agriculture raised the important point that there is no mention of inland drainage boards in this Money Resolution. That is a very material point. These inland drainage boards will have the power to levy an unlimited rate, and the expenses of the works they undertake may amount to a very considerable sum. I regret that their expenses are not included in this Money Resolution. The counties are not at all happy about this subject. Here is an extract from a letter which I have received from the Clerk to the Berkshire County Council:
I venture to hope that it still may be possible to persuade the Government to accept a limitation of the amount for which a catchment board may precept. This seems now the more important, in as much as I gather that the amount of grant is to vary between counties. I believe that the heavy expenditure said to be required in the Ouse district is the reason for the objection to the limitation of the precept, but surely the River Ouse must be exceptional in the expenditure required? At any rate the removal of a limitation, coupled with uncertainty as to the amount of the grants, must make every county council very apprehensive as to the amount which they may have to provide.
I urge the Minister to press the Treasury to allow the proportion of expenses to
be as large as possible. As far as this Bill will benefit agriculture I support it, but I doubt whether it will bring a real benefit to agriculture. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Wells) has said, it is more a Bill for the prevention of floods than the draining of waterlogged land. I think the Bill is too indefinite. I would conclude by urging the Minister to make the proportion of the cost borne by the Treasury as high as possible.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. W. R. SMITH): I think that this is a convenient moment to reply to the discussion which has taken place. The sympathetic tone of the speeches which have been made in this debate are very welcome to the Minister in charge of the Bill, although I am afraid that many of the arguments which have been put forward cancel themselves. The hon. and gallant Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte) has asked that a minimum should be fixed in the Bill so far as grants are concerned, while, on the other hand, the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) has asked that a maximum should be fixed. Of course, it would be difficult for the Government to meet both those points, and the mere fact that those two opinions have been expressed rather indicates that the line taken by the Government is right, and that each scheme should be determined upon its merits. I think that will be the soundest and the wisest course to pursue.
There will be a very great difference in the cost of the different schemes, not merely in relation to the rateable value which may be connected with them. Some of the schemes may be much more costly than others, and, therefore, there must be some elasticity in order that any grants which are made may approximate fairly to each particular scheme which must be considered upon its merits. I think that is the answer to the point which has been raised by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) who raised the question of the position of Surrey and Middlesex in regard to schemes which have been sanctioned. Those schemes will be continued on the basis upon which they have been granted, and I do not think that this Bill will affect them in any way. There has been an
agreed basis in regard to the cost of those schemes, and that will continue without alteration.

Mr. EDE: Does that mean that those schemes will remain the liability of the Surrey and Middlesex County Councils, and not the liability of the catchment board? That will mean that those county councils will have to bear the expense of draining their own area, and of helping to drain other areas.

Mr. SMITH: It is difficult to answer that question without having an opportunity of looking more closely into the circumstances of the case. No doubt an opportunity will arise to see whether any adjustment can be made, and there will be no disturbance of the agreement which has already been made. The position of the Surrey and Middlesex County Councils will not be worsened in regard to those schemes. I do not know how far those schemes come within any general proposals which may be made in regard to the Thames catchment area, or how far they are connected with the internal drainage board. Consequently, it will be impossible for me to give any more definite answer than to say that, so far as those obligations are concerned, they will be met, and, if any further point of difficulty arises, that must, be a matter of consultation and examination. The Thames area is a special case, and it is impossible to discuss it now as far as the obligations arising under this Bill are concerned. Undoubtedly, any financial obligations that may arise so far as the Thames catchment area is concerned will have to be dealt with on special lines, and subjected to very careful examination and analysis before anything can be done.
The hon. Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson) put forward some claims on behalf of the internal drainage board, and in a very large measure I think the hon. Member answered his own case when he described with some amount of gratitude the help and assistance that had been given after appeals had been made by the board with which he is associated. I think that the question of support to the internal drainage board must wait until we see how far a real problem arises in that respect. The fact that this Bill and this Financial Resolution make what, I think, is a generous provision for
financial assistance in regard to drainage schemes must be taken as an indication of the attitude of mind which will be adopted towards the problems which may arise in the various areas.
I would like to put one or two points in justification of that contention. I am persuaded that, when the catchment area authorities function fully and completely under this Bill, it may be that many of the obligations that now rest upon the internal drainage board will be considerably lessened. I will give an illustration. I am speaking from memory, but I believe that during the sittings of the Royal Commission on Land Drainage the members paid a visit to the Middle Level area, and they were convinced that the expenses of that Board were increased because they had to maintain a, level of water for navigation purposes which, if not obsolete, was very nearly so. I think my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields will agree that this is a question which can be dealt with. It will undoubtedly happen that in many areas the financial obligations of drainage boards will be materially reduced, because some of the difficulties which now exist in regard to their financial obligations will disappear. Until we see how far the operations of this Bill will result in material assistance to the internal drainage board, it is impossible to say how far it is desirable or necessary to give any more assistance than has previously been given to those bodies in regard to the Middle Level area.
In other areas the cost of draining the land has been very heavy and constitutes a burden almost too great to bear, because the operations have been confined to a narrow area, and because the work beyond that area has, in some cases, been neglected. As soon as that neglect has been repaired, I suggest that the obligations resting upon the internal drainage boards will be materially reduced, and the results of their work will be more effective. In those circumstances, the land will be much better drained than it is at the present time, and the chances are that there will be better results in those particular areas of the internal drainage boards and less cost than was the case in the past. I think there is contained within my observations an answer to the points which have been raised. The general financial obligations
provided for in this Resolution must be based upon a certain amount of elasticity. No doubt there will be some variations in the different catchment areas. In some of those areas, good work has been done while in others the work has been neglected. With these varying circumstances and conditions, it is impossible to fix a definite limit so far as financial grants are concerned. They must be different, and, therefore, the question will have to be dealt with on its merits as each scheme is presented for consideration.

Mr. GUINNESS: Would the honourable gentleman deal with the point that I mentioned, as to why this Resolution is limited to catchment boards, and does not cover all drainage authorities?

Mr. SMITH: I thought that I had just answered that question; I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was out of the House at the time. I pointed out that my right hon. friend suggested that the question of internal boards might have to be left to a later date, when more exact consideration could be given to it. I am inclined to the opinion that the operation of this Measure, when it is properly established for the effective treatment of catchment areas, leading to the removal of the obstacles and difficulties which exist in internal drainage areas, will have the effect of lessening the costs of existing internal drainage boards and all other drainage boards that may be set up, so that the result of the operation of the Act will be to make the work more effective, and thus to reduce the financial obligations that fall upon internal drainage boards. In that case there will not be the same claim for the making of financial grants as would otherwise be the case.
I speak as the result of experience as a member of the Royal Commission, which did come up against instances in which the work of an internal drainage board was made more difficult, and costs were higher than they would otherwise have been, because of certain obstacles and difficulties existing within the area. Provision is made in the Bill for dealing with such obstacles, and, therefore, I suggest that the Bill ought to be given a chance to operate in that regard before the Government are asked to commit themselves to any definite scheme of finan-
cial contribution towards internal drainage boards. As the hon. Member for Leominster said, grants have already been given and, although such grants have been given on another ground, and perhaps from another consideration, I do not think that there will be any departure from the policy. At any rate, until the Act, when it is on the Statute Book, has had a chance to operate, and we are able to see how these problems will more or less solve themselves, I do not think it is wise or desirable that the Government should be asked to commit themselves to financial obligations in that regard.

Mr. GUINNESS: I quite agree. I do not ask that new powers should be given, but, in view of the fact that this is a Consolidation Bill, and that a certain financial discretion is being asked for, I should have thought that it would be wise to amend the expression "catchment boards," and to make it evident that, even if the existing practice is not widened, the present discretion of the Ministry to give these grants to the internal authorities will not be interfered with. The first part of the hon. Gentleman's speech rather sounded as if he wished no longer to give these grants to internal authorities, and thought that they would be sufficiently dealt with by giving money to the catchment boards; but at the end he suggested that there would be no change. If there is any necessity for legislative sanction for the expenditure of this money, would it not be wise, in a Consolidation Measure, to make it plain that you are not interfering with the discretion of the Ministry to give grants to the internal authorities in the way in which they have received them in the past., while at the same time you are making provision for the new authorities which are to be set up?

Dr. ADDISON: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, we have power under the law as it stands to make grants to these internal boards for the purposes of their work, and we are in fact doing so. The law is not to be altered in that respect in any way.

Mr. GUINNESS: This is a Consolidation Bill, and surely we are being given to understand that this power will be repeated. If this Resolution is going to cover the whole Bill, ought not this exist-
ing power in the Consolidation Bill to be repeated in the Resolution which covers it?

Dr. ADDISON: The point here is that the Financial Resolution is for the purpose of making grants towards the works which will be undertaken by these new bodies, and that is as far as it goes.

Mr. GUINNESS: But the Bill is a Consolidation Bill.

Dr. ADDISON: It does not in any way discontinue the existing Acts, and, so far as they are concerned, we have already powers, and we exercise them. It is not proposed in any way to limit them in this Financial Resolution, which gives us power beyond existing Acts to give grants in payment for new work.

Viscount WOLMER: Would the right hon. Gentleman be willing to reconsider this matter before the Report stage, and take legal opinion upon it?

Dr. ADDISON: Certainly.

The CHAIRMAN: Arising out of the Minister's assurance that no transferred labour will be employed on these schemes—that there will be no such condition attached to the schemes—I should like to ask the hon. Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson) whether he wishes to move his Amendment—in line 16, at the end, to add the words
(iii) no such grants and advances shall be conditional upon the employment of a percentage of imported labour.

Sir E. SHEPPERSON: I was going to make that point myself, because, having listened to what the Minister has said, it appeared to me that this Amendment might now be unnecessary.

The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member thinks it is unnecessary, there will be no need for him to move it. I thought that it was unnecessary, but, after the statement of the Minister with reference to transferred labour, I thought that perhaps the words "imported labour" in the Amendment might have a different meaning.

Sir E. SHEPPERSON: May I formally move the Amendment, in order to make the situation absolutely clear?

Lieut. Colonel ACLAND -TROYTE: May I not have an answer to the question which I put?

The CHAIRMAN: We are not departing from the Resolution. I have allowed a general discussion for some time before taking any Amendment, in order to safeguard that position. We will take the hon. Member's Amendment now.

Sir E. SHEPPERSON: I beg to move, in line 16, at the end, to add the words:
(iii) no such grants and advances shall be conditional upon the employment of a percentage of imported labour.
My reason for putting this Amendment on the Paper is simply that, from my experience in the past, when grants have been applied for from one department or another, and particularly from the Unemployment Grants Committee, we have been met with the condition that a certain proportion of imported labour from other areas where there is unemployment shall be employed. The proportion generally stipulated for is 75 per cent. It was in order to remove what I might term this restriction against efficiency of work in the drainage districts that I put down this Amendment. I would remind the Minister and the Committee that this labour from other areas is not particularly efficient for drainage work. Drainage work is rather a skilled kind of work; at any rate, it requires a considerable amount of muscle; and the men put to work on these drainage schemes—artisans, perhaps, or other classes of men—are physically unable to put forth what is termed a full day's work, while at the same time they have no special interest in the work. They come into it for a period, until they can, quite rightly, get work at their own jobs, and, therefore, they are not as interested or as efficient in that work as local people would be; and it has been found, as a matter of practical experience that the cost of imported labour for this work is something like 50 per cent. more than the cost of local labour. The object of my Amendment is to save that increase of cost. I understand that the Minister gives an assurance that that condition will not apply in these cases, and in that case there is no such grievance as would necessitate this Amendment, but I should like to have that assurance.

Dr. ADDISON: This is not a condition which has been applied except so far as they have received unemployment grants hitherto, and we do not propose to apply it, but I take it that where works have been started under arrangements with the Unemployment Grants Committee, no doubt the terms of agreement will be kept. At all events, if they give rise to difficulty I shall be willing to consider cases that are brought to my notice, but generally it is not our intention to apply this condition.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: "Imported" is a very wide term. Labour has been employed in connection with certain subsidies from outside the country entirely. Can the Minister give an assurance that there will be absolutely no people employed from outside the country?

Dr. ADDISON: The conditions attaching to all these schemes will apply to this, but it is very undesirable to insert an Amendment on these lines. The present policy will be continued.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I will accept the right hon. Gentleman's assurance, but I am sorry that it is not a little more definite.

Sir E. SHEPPERSON: In view of the Minister's statement that this will not be a condition in future and that he will sympathetically consider it as applied to this work, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment by leave withdrawn.

Main Question again proposed.

Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: I should like to ask the Minister if he would be prepared to give an undertaking that any grants given under these proposals to catchment area authorities should not be less than 50 per cent. of the cost of work being undertaken.

The CHAIRMAN: This is the third time that this question has been raised.

Sir D. NEWTON: I do not think we have had an answer.

The CHAIRMAN: It does not matter whether the hon. Gentleman has had an answer or not. I think he has had an answer. I cannot have all the Members
rising in turn asking about the 50 per cent. The hon. Member is the third who has done it.

Viscount WOLMER: On a point of Order. If an hon. Member is not satisfied, surely he is entitled to ask a question.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I quite realise your point, Sir. I asked a definite question on the figures——

The CHAIRMAN: I am not concerned with what the hon. Member asked. I am concerned with the matter of fact. The hon. Gentleman is the third person who has asked about the 50 per cent.

Sir D. NEWTON: I was going to follow that modest request up by asking if, in cases where land drainage is undertaken as a relief scheme, more than 50 per cent. might be given, in view of the fact that the labour to be employed would probably not be as efficient as the authority undertaking the work would normally employ. I was going to base my request on the fact that the catchment area authorities are charged with the maintenance of the main channel. Main road authorities receive 60 per cent., and I fail to see that in the case of a main channel that is an unreasonable request, in spite of the number of times the question has been asked. I hope we shall be able to get some kind of assurance in regard to this important matter.

Mr. STRACHEY: There is an important point as to the relationship between the new grants and the Unemployment Grants Committee grants which we should have cleared up right away. Will catchment areas or other authorities be eligible for both these grants, and will they be alternative? I presume they cannot get both grants for the same piece of work, but will different sections of the work be eligible for the two forms of grants? There will be administrative confusion unless we have some clear statement as to what the relationship of the two systems will be.

Mr. W. R. SMITH: I have already answered the point which the hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir D. Newton) raised. One Member opposite asked for a maximum and another for a minimum, and we have to disappoint one if we con-
cede it to the other. The better line, perhaps, would be to disappoint both. The amount will vary as between catchment area and catchment area, and it is inadvisable to have any limitation of the character the hon. Gentleman suggests. On the point raised by my hon. Friend, I do not think there is any difficulty. There will be no overlapping, and it is obvious that, in regard to grants in relation to schemes of this description, you must in the main have them related to the Department that is competent to deal with them. Some grants have been made by the Ministry of Health and some by the Unemployment Grants Committee, and now these grants will be made by the Ministry of Agriculture. Obviously, in regard to schemes of work related to drainage, it must necessarily and naturally be in the hands of a Department that is qualified to express an opinion. In regard to the other point it is exceedingly difficult to state definitely under which heading grants will be made. The question is open. If, in regard to all the circumstances of the case, it might be deemed desirable to deal with it by an unemployment grant, possibly it will be dealt with under that head, but, if it is inadvisable to deal with it in that way it will be better to deal with it under the provisions of this Measure through the Ministry of Agriculture in conjunction with the Treasury. In any case, the first consideration will have to be by the Ministry of Agriculture but, in so far as there may be any variation, the only answer that can be given is that it will entirely depend on the circumstances of the case. The chances are, in a general sense, that the matter will be related to the Ministry of Agriculture unless there are very special circumstances which might warrant it being dealt with on another basis.

Mr. WELLS: Can the hon. Gentleman give us the total amount that it is anticipated will be spent on the different drainage areas which have already been formed?

Dr. ADDISON: There is a provisional figure in the paper circulated to the House of £15,000,000, but it is most conjectural. It entirely depends on all sorts of contingencies. I should be extremely reluctant to give an estimate.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I should like to ask a question in regard
to grants. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the grant will be as low as 10 per cent. and in some cases 25 per cent? Does he think that 25 per cent. will be the lowest which will be given? The County Councils Association regard this matter with very great anxiety, and, if the right hon. Gentleman will give an indication as to what he considers is likely to be the lowest grant, it will be a great help to the county councils.

Dr. ADDISON: I am sure that where a scheme is required these matters will always be dealt with and made the subject of negotiations. My particular experience is that the County Councils Association and their representatives are seldom unable to tell you what they think. If they want to get work done, I am sure that they will come to terms about it. I can scarcely imagine a case where the percentage will be as low as stated by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I am certain that in practical administration it would really be a mistake to impose any hard and fast figures.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: There is one question which I put to the Minister which he has not answered. I think that it must have been an omission on his part. The Minister used certain figures in connection with schemes in other places, and we have had the information that probably £250,000 would go to the Ouse. On the basis of that figure and the figures which the Minister has used, will not the proportion be, not on the basis of 50 per cent., but on the basis of the figures of the Minister. We have not had a reply to this question. I want to know what will be the basis with regard to the Romney Marsh scheme. Will there be a heavier burden upon the rates? We ought to have some information on that point.

Dr. ADDISON: I only mentioned the figure in connection with the Ouse because that figure has for some years past been the subject of public discussion. I have here, of course, the estimates of the Department as to what the different schemes would involve in the different areas. I am sure that anybody with any knowledge of public business will recognise that it would be most undesirable
to publish any figures as to how much in regard to particular schemes the Ministry is going to contribute, I cannot imagine anything that would be more disastrous.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I thank the Minister for his answer. It is exactly what I thought it would be. I am aware that the figures he gave at the beginning of the day are absolutely misleading and will have no effect whatever as far as this House is concerned. I am sure that he did not realise or understand the position until I put pressure upon him. I say, frankly, that these figures have no meaning at all if the position which he has just built up is the correct one, and I believe it is. There is one point which has not been raised, and that is that the Government decline entirely, as far as this matter is concerned to set a limit to the amount of money to be expended under this Resolution. I should like to draw attention to an entirely fresh fact. On this Resolution, we have been dealing with the finances of the country on a very large scale, and we have not had a chance of putting questions to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. It is a matter of great regret to many of us, and it has limited the discussion upon the Financial Resolution in an extraordinary way. I wish to make my protest at not having been permitted to see the Financial Secretary on the Front Bench this morning. He appears to have hidden his light under the very dim shadow of the Minister of Agriculture
1.0 p.m.
There is also another point to which I should like to call the attention of the Minister. On Financial Resolutions we are nearly always given an assurance by the Government of the day that with regard to the construction of new works and to operations on existing works involving the use of a considerable amount of material. All such material should be British material. If we give the Minister this Resolution to-day, will he put into the Bill, or introduce at the proper place a definite Resolution, that in no circumstances are the works to be constructed of other than British material?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman has been sufficiently long in this House to know that, if he wants an
Amendment of that kind, the Bill is the place for it and not the Resolution.

Mr WILLIAMS: I am asking for an assurance.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman seems deliberately to be going outside the Money Resolution in regard to these matters.

Mr. WILLIAMS: If that is so, I frankly accept your Ruling.

The CHAIRMAN: I have pointed out out to hon. Members several times that the only thing with which we are concerned to-day is the charge upon the Treasury in relation to the Money Resolution.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I accept the Ruling entirely that the charge on the Treasury is the only matter with which we are concerned. It is for certain purposes which can be gone into in considerable detail. In those various details and in regard to the amounts involved various questions are raised in connection with catchment boards, but I will refrain from referring to them at the present time. I merely wish to remark that once again we have had a Resolution from the Government of the day which is entirely unsatisfactory from the financial point of view.

Question put, and agreed to

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next, 30th June.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I am happy to think that it will require few words to commend this Bill to the House. It is one of those Measures which, while they arouse no passionate partisanship, are of considerable importance to the well-being of this country. It is not too much to say that were this Bill to be rejected many of the wheels of local activity, so essential to
the nation, would cease to go round. The Local Loans Fund exists mainly for the purpose of providing loans for public works for the lesser local authorities. In its main features this Bill follows the lines of similar Bills in previous years. Its principal provision is the fixing at the sum of £30,000,000 of the maximum amount which may be issued for the purpose of local loans up to the date of a further Act of this kind. That is provided in Clause 2. Clause 1 reappoints for a further period of five years the Public Works Loans Commissioners, whose office expires next year. The remaining Clauses are concerned with wiping off from the assets of the Fund certain loans not likely to be recovered, and the remission of principal and interest or of interest alone in the case of certain items. That is all that there is in the Bill, and it is with great confidence that I commend it to the House.

Mr. WISE: I should have expected that the Financial Secretary would have given us a little more explanation of the purpose and reasons of the various Clauses of the Bill. As I understand it, the Bill writes off certain loans as bad debts. About that I have nothing to say because, obviously, that depends on administrative details of which the Treasury, which is very careful in these matters, has fully informed itself. It also proposes to fix the limit of loans which the Public Works Loans Board may make to local authorities for various purposes, for housing, for works of public utility and for a whole variety of things, many of which are set out in the report of the board. I should like to ask the Financial Secretary why the figure is fixed at £30,000,000. If £30,000,000 was an adequate sum when the Conservative Government were in power for loans to local authorities for public purposes, why is it supposed that it is an adequate sum when there is a Government in power who, at this moment, are holding conferences with local authorities and pressing them to undertake all sorts of works which could be financed, as I understand it, under this fund? It seems to me to be a curious situation that the Government should, after a year of pressure, at last have come to the view that they can exercise much more pressure on local authorities to undertake works which will assist employ-
ment and generally help the internal situation, and then in the same week come to the House with a proposal which is exactly on the lines proposed by their predecessors, in an entirely different national situation. There may be some explanation. It may be that the Government think that this Board or the local authorities ought not to be trusted with a larger sum. That seems to be a curious explanation, but there may be another explanation. We ought to be informed what is the view of the Government and why they fix the amount at this particular sum, no more and no less.
The main purpose of my rising is to draw attention to the rather curious composition of the board which the Government proposed to set up, having regard to the Government that is in office. The Financial Secretary has said that the Government merely propose to reappoint the existing board, which was appointed by the Conservative Government five years ago. I have been interested to examine into the functions of the board and into the exact public purposes which they have to perform. As I understand it, the Loans Commissioners, under the Act of 1875, have to consider the propriety of granting a loan having regard to the security for its repayment, and to determine whether the work for which the loan is asked is of public benefit, having regard to the amount of public money, that is to say, £30,000,000, which is placed at the disposal of the Commissioners. Take the first point. These Loans Commissioners have to consider as to the value of the security offered by the local authorities in asking for loans for public purposes. According to the report of the Commissioners, in 16 specific cases, not amounting to a very large sum, they have refused loans to local authorities on the grounds that the rates in the district are too high, and in 47 other cases they have refused loans to local authorities for other reasons. I looked through the list of these eminent City men who are to determine whether the rates in a particular district are too high, and so far as I am aware not one of them has ever had any experience on a local authority in an industrial district.
Take the second point. The Board is to determine whether the purpose for which the loan is required is justified.
They are asked to pass judgment whether the local authorities should have the money for this purpose or that purpose. Moreover, they are asked to pass judgment on the question whether it is desirable, I suppose having regard to the state of the capital market, to make any loan at all. I imagine, since the attitude of the Commissioners will determine the amount which the Treasury is prepared to place at their disposal, that their policy and their advice guides the Treasury a great deal in regard to the total amount which shall be made available. The Financial Secretary is well aware that there is a very strong public controversy raging, and has been for some months, on what is known as "the Treasury view" with regard to the expenditure of public money. The view strongly held by Hon. Members opposite and shared by some of the officials of the Treasury is that it does not help unemployment at all to spend money for public purposes; that the more money you spend for public purposes the less there is for private purposes. That is the Treasury view. It is a view which broadly divides the two parties in this House in regard to the raising of loans and the expenditure of public money for public purposes.
Having regard to the attitude of the Government and the action they are taking elsewhere to persuade local authorities to go ahead with schemes of public expenditure to provide employment, having regard also to the strong views held by the Liberal party and the fact that the Government disagree with the views held by hon. Members opposite on this very important question, one would have thought that in setting up a board to administer money for this purpose the Government would have taken the precaution of seeing that their point of view, and also the point of view of hon. Members below the Gangway, was represented. I doubt very much whether any one of the members of this board would agree with the view, which is in fact the policy, of the Government. It is an extraordinary board for a Labour Government to set up. I say nothing against the individual capacity or their desire to render public service of these eminent peers and bankers, and insurance magnates, but there is not a single one who can be regarded as taking the view of public affairs and public expen-
diture in relation to unemployment, of the desirability of extending the useful activities of local authorities and providing public utilities, which is held on these benches and which is the policy of the Government. Out of 18 members on this board, 10 are bank directors, 13, apparently, are insurance directors, three of them are directors of one single company, and four of them are actually directors of public utility companies which are, I believe, in competition with public utilities which this fund exists to finance and extend.
I can understand such a board being appointed by a Conservative Government, but it absolutely passes my comprehension to discover what justification there is for the present Government excluding any representative of labour or the trades unions, any representative of the co-operative societies or any local administrator who is acting as chairman of a finance committee of a local authority—and there are dozens of them now who are members of the Labour party—or any chairman of a co-operative society, which carries on transactions involving large sums of money, or excluding anybody who could be expected to have the smallest sympathy with the objects which this party exists to propound and advance. I should like to know whether the Government intend that the Bill shall be carried through in this form or whether they are prepared to accept Amendments in Committee designed to alter, fundamentally, the composition of this board. I recognise that the Financial Secretary has been very much pressed with other things and may not have scrutinised the Clauses of this Bill very carefully or considered the reaction which this is likely to have on those members of his own party who listened to his admirable and eloquent speech at the Party conference on the desirability of bringing banking under public control in order that the purposes of this party might be expedited. Here is an opportunity of taking a step forward in that direction. I hope he will not lose the opportunity.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I will not follow the hon. Member for Leicester East (Mr. Wise) into the question of banking and public control, but I was very much amazed with one part of his speech. He said that the men on this board were men of high character, but that it was
not a suitable board for this purpose because there were not upon it representatives of various outside interests. He referred to the trade unions, and wanted to exercise pressure on the Treasury to put people on this board not because they were capable of managing the job but because they represented other interests——

Mr. WISE: The hon. Member must not misrepresent me. I said that in the co-operative movement, and in the chair of finance committees of great local authorities like Bradford and Sheffield, there are men experienced in the Labour movement and in accord with the views of this party who are just as competent because of their experience in banking to protect the public interest as the members of this board, indeed, much more competent, because of their knowledge of the problems of local government, to exercise judgment on applications from local authorities. I did not suggest that they should be put there because they represented trade unions, but because they have the knowledge which is necessary.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I do not wish to misrepresent the hon. Member, but the explanation he has just made makes his case far worse. He used the word "Labour." This board is entirely above and beyond any party in any way—[Interruption]. I believe the Financial Secretary will agree with me in saying that this board has been appointed because they are the most competent people to carry out the work and not for any political reasons whatever. The Parliamentary Secretary will also agree that the only question to be considered in the composition of this board is the service of the country, not politics. The members of this board should not be appointed because they belong to this or that party, but simply because of their competency. If I am wrong then the Treasury must reorganise the board on this basis.
I desire to put one or two questions on Clause 2, which deals with a sum of £30,000,000. Protests have been made that this is not an adequate sum. If one remembers how long that sum has been circulating, and if one considers the growth of the nation during that time, there is a comparatively strong case for saying that the sum is not adequate
to-day. I am not arguing it. But we ought to have an explanation from the Treasury. Does the Treasury consider the sum adequate? Is the whole of the sum now being used? If the £30,000,000 is in full use there is no need for more, but if directly any sum comes back to the pool there is an immediate demand for it, there would be justification for increasing the sum. I see on the Order Paper the Financial Resolution, and when we come to it I shall have to refer to it in great detail. In the first Schedule of the Bill you are actually remitting a certain sum of money, something well over £100,000. When money is remitted in that way does it mean that the £30,000,000 is reduced? Is there any means whereby, when the Treasury have remissions of this kind, a further sum of money can be obtained so that it may still be used for these particular purposes?
There is one other point of principle that I wish to raise. What is the best way of approaching this Public Works Loans Board in order to get sums remitted for public works, for instance, a harbour which is desperately hard up? Will the Financial Secretary to the Treasury give me direct advice as to how to get a remission of a loan where there is no possibility of the loan being paid back? It is done in Scotland on a great scale. How can we in England have the same amazing luck in approaching the Board as the Scottish people have? We have harbours in just as bad straits as those in Scotland, particularly in the West country. I beseech the Financiai Secretary not to be led away by the extraordinary remarks made by the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise) or by the fact that the hon. Member quoted a speech against him. I hope also that he will see that this body is kept entirely outside all party interests.

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: A Bill of this kind, to the knowledge of those who are old Members of the House, has been brought up at various times during the last five Parliaments and on several occasions during each year. So far as I am concerned I do not propose to offer any strong opposition to what the Bill contains. I would supplement one question put by my hon. Friend who has just spoken. How long is the £30,000,000 to last? One does not like to
over-estimate, but at the same time one wants to know whether this £30,000,000 is supposed to last till the end of the next financial year. If not, we must expect another Bill for another £30,000,000 in the course of a few months. I have heard these Bills discussed during the last five Parliaments but never before have I heard raised the point that was raised by the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise). So far from grumbling about the names of the gentlemen who are referred to in Clause 1, the hon, Member ought to join with the whole House in saying how grateful we are to these very able and competent men for giving their time and taking the trouble to look after our affairs without any reward except the baldest thanks of the House. I should like to put on record, on behalf of my party, how profoundly grateful we are.
The hon. Member also made the point that certain Labour financiers were kept out on account of political leanings. There is no particle of truth in the statement. If there are vacancies and there are men of the same opinion as the hon. Member who are equally competent and willing to do the work, I am sure that whatever Government is in power will be very glad of their help. To say that men are kept out because of their political views, whether Labour or Socialist or Communist, would be as much as to say that I would not like to sit on the Board of Norwich Hospital with a manager who happened to be a Socialist. If a man is willing to give the time, and is competent to do the work as well as other people, we are very glad to welcome his help. I would remind the hon. Member for East Leicester that what we are concerned with here is not a party panel, but a body of very able men, whose services command large sums in the City of London, who are willing to help by acting as unpaid Commissioners and to whom we ought to be very thankful. The hon. Member went on to refer to a speech made at the Labour Party Conference by the Financial Secretary on the subject of bringing banking under public control. It would not be in order to debate that question here and now although I should be very pleased to do so. We had a
partial debate upon it when I was in charge of the Currency and Bank Notes Bill, and, if I had to give an answer to the hon. Member upon that question, not in detail but in a general way, I would suggest to him that he should turn up the speech made at the Brighton Labour Conference by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The roasting which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave on that occasion to the hon. Member for East Leicester on this subject we have not forgotten. If he wants an answer to the question of why we should not bring banking under public control I suggest that the answer given to him by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that occasion is ample for my purpose.

Mr. WISE: But I may recall to the hon. Member that the Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time was speaking in support of a Resolution for bringing banking under public control.

Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, and he told the gentlemen who supported that idea, in the politest language of which he is capable, that they were talking nonsense and from that day to this we have heard nothing about it. I recommend the hon. Member for East Leicester to read that speech again. I pass from recalling this very interesting and amusing episode however to consider the main part of this Bill. We see here that these loans have been very largely concerned with Scottish harbours and I do not object to that in the least.

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): Hear, hear!

Mr. SAMUEL: It is not for the reason assumed by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland that I refrain from making any objection to cancelling certain loans to Scottish harbours. It is not on financial grounds, but because the men who will benefit are men after my own heart, namely, the deep-sea fishermen. I was brought up among them on my own native East Coast of England and anything that can be done for them I would like to see done. But as a matter of finance, I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that in the case of Balintore Harbour, for instance, the amount of the loan was £2,000 and the
amount repaid nil and it is stated in the Financial Memorandum that the trustees have been in arrear ever since the year 1893. Then in regard to Thurso River Harbour we find that there has been a £13,000 loan, that the amount repaid is nil, and that the trustees have been in financial difficulties ever since the loan was advanced. There are also loans in connection with Fraserburgh Harbour, Port Ness Harbour, Rosehearty Harbour, Dingwall Harbour, and Scrabster Harbour.
There is an object lesson here which I would bring to the notice of hon. Members who have advocated setting up municipal banks. If these harbour authorities, instead of going to the Treasury, had borrowed the money from local municipal banks—supposing such banks to be in existence—then local people would have had to find the money and would have had to bear this loss, which the Treasury is now willing to bear out of the public purse. I hope that those in favour of municipal banks will take note of the immense amount of harm which would be done in cases of this kind if the money had been borrowed from local municipal banks. I find also loans to individuals—the names of Collington, Curtis, Derry, Grew-cock, Read, Savage and Tudhope are mentioned—and varying amounts are to be written off in these cases. I notice that in every one of these cases in which there has had to be foreclosure there has been a loss. The property concerned has not realised anything like the amount of money lent upon it. As far as I know these properties were valued by the Revenue department. The valuers were State valuers but evidently the values placed upon them have been higher than the amounts actually realised upon them. For instance, in the case of Grewcock we have a loan of £8,100 made on 10th June, 1925, under Section 1 of the Agricultural Credits Act, 1923. The property was valued at £10,800 in April, 1924, and on foreclosure it was sold for £6,500. I am the last in the world to find fault with any man for an error of judgment, for no one knows what is going to happen in the future, but it is impossible to overlook the fact that in every case where there has been the test of sale these values have been found to be far too high.
It may be said by the Treasury that prices have fallen since 1923–24. My reply is that no one ever expected prices to continue at the level at which they were then and, in making a valuation for a mortgage which is to extend over a series of years, allowance is always made for possible variations in values. I suppose some such allowance has been made here, but the mere fact of these people coming to a Government Department to ask for assistance by way of loan, showed that they could not conveniently have got the money elsewhere, and that ought to have suggested to the valuers very close and careful inquiry. Yet we have the fact as I say that in every case where the revenue values have been tested by sale they have been found to be too high. Therefore, I would ask the Financial Secretary to have a word with the Government valuers and to ask the reason for this state of things. There may be quite a valid reason for this discrepancy in values. I do not doubt the capability and efficiency of those who made these valuations but evidently they have not taken the precautions which I think they ought to have taken. I ask the hon. Gentleman to deal with that point and also with my query as to how long the £30,000,000 is going to last.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I rise to reinforce the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise). I cannot accept the theory that these appointments are of a purely non-political character. In many case I think they are appointments in return for services rendered. I find that one of these gentlemen was a Tory candidate, unsuccessfully three times and successfully once. It is just possible that he is rewarded for the services he has rendered to the Conservative party in losing three elections by being appointed to a position of this description.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: What sort of reward is it to be appointed to a board for which you get no salary or pay and no emoluments whatever, but have to give your services free on a great many occasions?

Mr. WALLHEAD: There are all kinds of rewards in the public life of this country for which men receive no financial consideration, and my hon. Friend knows that many of these posts that carry no salary with them at all are regarded as
honourable and desirable things and of use in other ways than the mere receipt of a salary. Everyone in public life knows that there are certain individuals who desire to be appointed to certain offices because they regard it as honourable, and not only so, but it is often a paying proposition in many ways, and it seems to me that the argument of the hon. Member opposite does not carry very much weight.
Most of these Commissioners are appointed for the purpose of assisting public authorities by the loan of rather cheaper money than they can get in other directions, and inasmuch as they are almost wholly violently anti-Socialist and opposed to the advance of municipal services, they would be likely to oppose many of the applications that they might receive. The hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) raised a question in regard to certain loans, but those loans were moneys advanced to the landed interests. There have been refusals of loans to public authorities on the ground that their rates were too high, but private landowners have money advanced to them, and that money is a dead loss. There are very few dead losses on loans to public authorities in this country. There is none reported here, and in any case, if the money serves a public, communal purpose, it is of value to the community in some form or another.
The hon. Member for Farnham stated that there were no vacancies, but of course there are vacancies. All these seats are vacant now, because under the Statue the Commissioners all vacate their seats, and it was open to the Government to appoint an entirely fresh board if they so desired. I think my hon. Friend the Member for East Leicester has raised a very pertinent point indeed. If the Front Bench of the Labour and Socialist party believe in the capacity of members of their own party up and down the country, they might place some faith in them by giving them admission to a board of this description, in order to prove their capacity and to establish a point of view that is possibly necessary on such a board.
Take the name of the first gentleman mentioned in the Bill. Is it any wonder that he might be expected to oppose advances to a local authority in a dis-
tressed area? Most of the distressed areas are mining areas and have been through a prolonged industrial struggle, and we know the point of view of the gentleman mentioned, Lord Hunsdon. In 1926 Lord Hunsdon declared that the Germans were our enemies in time of war and that we used starvation as a weapon against them, but that the miners were our enemies now and that starvation was a proper weapon to be used against them also. In face of a statement of that description, a Labour Government once more places this gentleman in a position like this! I say that under the circumstances a Labour Government would have been justified in telling this gentleman that he was unfit to hold any public office anywhere, and if they will not say it, I will say it on my own behalf and on behalf of those hon. Members on this side who accept my point of view.
There is another question. My own local authority is in some difficulty. Some years ago we had an unfortunate catastrophe, which arose from natural causes. There was a flood, and a culvert burst, and a child was washed into the culvert. The various Government departments said the local authority should rebuild that culvert, and plans have been passed. The cost of the culvert will run into something like £4,500, but in course of the rebuilding of the culvert and the carrying of it in a certain direction to make it absolutely safe, it is found to be necessary to demolish 20 cottages that have been condemned for years past, not as insanitary, but as unfit for human habitation. The local authority, which is the Merthyr Tydvil Corporation, have plans approved for the building of 20 cottages to take the place of the 20 cottages which they propose to destroy, and the cost of these cottages will be about £8,000. The whole job is held up because they cannot raise the necessary loan of £13,000.
It is a very necessary piece of public work, and it will find some employment for the men in that area who are unemployed. They have come to the public Departments, and there is some demur. Whether the demur is now with the Ministry of Health, or whether it lies with the Public Works Loans Commissioners, I am not quite sure, but, at any rate, if it comes from the Public Works Loans Commissioners, I want to know whether
the Government have any power at all to say that the Commissioners shall exercise some extended discretion in the matter. What are these public authorities to do? The work is necessary, and it seems to me that a body such as this is the proper body for supplying the funds that the local authority needs, but if persons like Lord Hunsdon are to have a word in it, I can quite imagine what he would have to say to a mining district like Merthyr. We may suppose that he still regards miners as potential enemies, and, if so, he might think it was a good thing to keep them living in houses condemned as unfit for human habitation, as a punishment for their industrial and political sins.
I hope the Government will respond to the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for East Leicester and accept certain Amendments with regard to the personnel and the position and functions of this board. I think the point is a legitimate one which can be fairly put forward. In the list of names there are chairmen of public utility companies who may be expected to be associated with other public utility companies. If it is right politically to put on these particular chairmen who may be expected to have association with other like people, it cannot be wrong to place upon this board chairmen of finance committees of public authorities who may exercise a like influence in a Socialist direction as against an anti-Socialist direction.

Mr. MANDER: I desire to associate myself with the remarks of the ex-Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and to say how deeply grateful this House must be to the various members of the board who have been rendering voluntary service of great value, with no reward, for a number of years past. I do not think there is anyone who would not wish to render them all gratitude for their services. The hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise) has raised a very important matter of policy which is not dependent on the personnel of this particular board. He has raised a question as to whether, seeing that there has been a change of Government with a different outlook, and, presumably, with a different policy, any use is being made, when opportunity presents itself, by bringing in a Bill of this kind, to extend the opportunities for development work in
different parts of the country. The Bill seems to be a mere reproduction of what has been going on for many years past, and we might have a statement from the Financial Secretary as to whether there is any change and any advance.
The Government have been singularly unsuccessful up-to-date in dealing with the unemployment problem, but one is given to understand that they are now contemplating, or nearly in the act of, turning over a new leaf. But is there any evidence of a new leaf in this Bill? The Liberal party have got very genuine views on matters of this kind. We have put forward the idea of a board of national investment with bigger and wider powers than anything in this Bill, so that the flow of capital into local loans and other directions might be influenced to a very considerable extent. But I quite understand that Liberal policy is much too progressive for the present Government, though we hope that they may now think whether there is not something in these proposals after all. There are two views on this matter. There is the conservative view, if pill like, the careful view, that you want to spend as little money as you can on development of a public nature for certain specific reasons. There is the other view, that as long as the work, the whole undertaking is of a constructive nature, which is going to give something in return either now or in the distant future, and is not merely in the nature of relief work with no permanent value, it is a good thing to spend as much money as you can, and to raise loans for development in different parts of the country.
2.0 p.m.
It is well known that we on these benches associate ourselves with that plan of national development and re-equipment. Just as various manufactories and industries in different parts of the country were urged by the late Lord Privy Seal, and are endeavouring in their own way, to realise and bring up-to-date their own industries, so it should be the policy of the State to use its powers to rationalise the national services, and it might well be possible by a measure of this kind to extend the opportunities for finding work for the unemployed through measures of a reconstructive value. On the question of a board of national investment, I do not know whether I am in order, but I shall
certainly, in Committee, put down Amendments to convert this Measure, as far as possible, into one containing a board of national investment with very much wider powers than any contemplated in this rather unimaginative Measure, if I may say so. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to show that this Bill is not a mere repetition of what has been going on year after year and decade after decade, but that there is something new in it, something vital which shows that the Government have at last turned over a new leaf, and are going to cut their way through all the obstacles, and thereby set going schemes of a constructive value that will find work for hundreds of thousands of those who cannot now get it.

Mr. J. JONES: I thought I could not listen very long to some of the lectures we have heard this afternoon. I might remind some hon. Members who have been addressing us that none of us, not even the youngest, knows everything. None of these lectures were ever delivered to any other Government.

Mr. MANDER: I have never been here before.

Mr. JONES: Then you are not attending to your duties.

Mr. MANDER: I meant that I was not in the last Parliament.

Mr. JONES: A good job, too! As far as we are concerned, we quite appreciate our shortcomings, and recognise our handicaps. I do not agree with this Board. You cannot get away from the fact that the first interest of bankers and insurance magnates is to consider the interests of the people they represent. It is all humbug to say that politics have nothing to do with it. Their politics, after all, are their bread and butter politics. Let a Bill be introduced into this House interfering with the privileges of insurance companies, bankers and ship-owners, and then see what kind of politics we get—the politics of the gentleman from the Prudential. We Labour men are told that we have no right to be on these boards, because we have not the necessary knowledge and experience. As a matter of fact, it is not because we have not the knowledge or experience; it is because we have not the
necessary class bias. I belong to a municipality, one of the oldest from an orthodox point of view. We are judged not by what we have done, but by what we are capable of doing. We are judged by our financial position, which is not our fault; it is our misfortune. We in West Ham to-day are paying one of the highest rates in the country. Compare us with Westminster. A penny rate in Westminster brings in £30,000, while a penny rate in West Ham brings in £5,000; so that in order for us to carry out the same responsibilities—and we have greater responsibilities; we have a greater population of poverty-stricken people——

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Dunnico): That has nothing to do with this Bill.

Mr. WISE: In considering the composition of this board, are we not entitled to discuss the principles on which the board are appointed? Surely we are entitled to bring forward arguments why the composition of the board should be changed?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is perfectly obvious that we cannot enter into discussions upon the relative rateable values of various corporations.

Mr. JONES: I accept your decision, but I thought I was in order in trying to point out that one of the functions of this Board is to give reasons for not granting local authorities money for carrying out public improvements. I was introducing West Ham as an illustration of the position in which local authorities find themselves. We are one of the highest rated boroughs in Great Britain, and, although our rates are high, relatively they are lower than the City of Westminster. We do more service and spend more money on public welfare than the City of Westminster. This board can be altered if the Government intend to give their own people a chance. We do not give way to people on the other side of the House. I have been here long enough to know that all the brains are not on that side of the House, and that some would not be here at all if it were not for their banking accounts. Their cheque books brought them here, not their ability, and yet they are the people who say, when we have a board to deal
with great public schemes, that the only people who can judge these matters are the people who have been born in the purple, and who have gained their position, not because of any capacity, but because they have control of money. This board is not satisfactory, and the local authorities throughout the country are not satisfied with the kind of people on it with whom they have to deal.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: By the leave of the House, I will deal with one or two points that have been raised. With regard to the valuations with which the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) dealt, as everyone knows, in the last few years there have been tremendous drops in the value of property. The business of the valuer is not to speculate and say what he thinks the value of property will be in a certain number of years, but to decide the value of property at the date of the valuation. Money is lent on a proportion of that value; in ordinary circumstances, that proportion would be two-thirds, but this House decided that the proportion in certain cases should be three-quarters. There is therefore neither any criticism on the valuer nor on those whose business it was to carry out the policy which this House imposed. With regard to the amount of £30,000,000, there is nothing really limited. Another Pubic Works Loans Bill can be brought in at any time. There is no specific date to which this £30,000,000 runs. The amount brought in to any one Bill can run until the next Bill has been introduced, and, if the estimate which had been made, that this sum would probably last until the summer of next year, proved to be unfounded, and the money was required before that date, it would be perfectly possible, as has been done on previous occasions, to bring in a second Bill earlier than was anticipated. Therefore, the limitation of £30,000,000 is not in any sense a limitation if suitable or desirable opportunities for lending this money were found to a greater extent than had been anticipated.
There have been two further criticisms, one of the policy and one of the personnel. With regard to policy, which was stressed by my hon. Friend the Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise) and by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), I do not
consider that this particular Measure is the one through which new lines of policy should be struck out for unemployment. That really belongs to different parts of the machinery which the Government have set up, and this is not the particular medium through which that should be carried out. This Measure is more for the normal and ordinary apparatus of lending, mainly to local authorities. With regard to personnel, it is not a party personnel. That is not to say that every person who takes an active part in political life has a political label, but these people are not chosen for party reasons, but because they fulfil certain qualifications, particularly with regard to banking experience. This board does not have much say in policy, but acts in accordance with the policy laid down by this House. The main function of the board is to deal with matters of security, and it is as judges of security that we require bankers for this purpose.

Mr. WISE: Is not part of their function, as defined in the Public Loans Act of 1875, to determine whether the work for which a loan is asked would be of such benefit to the public as to justify a loan out of public money, having regard to the amount of money at their disposal? That is an issue of policy. They have to judge as to the state of the capital market, and therefore as to the desirability of diverting moneys to public purposes, and to that extent, as I have no doubt they would argue, from private purposes in which as bankers, insurance magnates or company promoters, whatever they may be, they are personally interested.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The hon. Member is not correct in this sense, that, in carrying out their duties in matters of policy, they conform to the wishes of this House. They no doubt have a certain discretion, but they exercise that discretion along the lines which this House enjoins. It is, however, essentially in regard to matters of security that they are appointed. I have been asked if I were prepared to accept amendements in Committee, and my answer is that I am certainly not prepared to accept any Amendments which will drastically alter the provisions of the Bill. I do not subscribe to the criticisms of the fitness of these persons for the particular functions for which they have been appointed.

Mr. WALLHEAD: On that point——

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I cannot keep on giving way. I have had one long interruption from the hon. Member for East Leicester, and it will destroy the argument if I keep on giving way. I say that I cannot subscribe to the criticisms of their fitness for the particular functions for which the Board had been appointed. They are able and distinguished men, who have given voluntary and effective and suitable service, for which our thanks are due. Therefore, I could not for a moment consider accepting any Amendment which would displace any of these men from the Board, and, still less, sweep out the whole of the existing members. It would be a slight upon them which would be wholly undeserved, for, though these criticisms has been made to-day, so far as I am aware there has been no complaint of the decisions they have given in these matters. One would imagine that hon. Members were voicing a long series of complaints against the board's decision, but, so far as I know, that idea is absolutely and entirely without foundation. The criticisms made here have been made for the first time. However, I do not want to be too rigid in my view, and if it be suggested that there is an angle of vision—economic, not political—on these matters which is not wholly represented by the Members whose names are in this Bill I am open to consider adding, not a large number of names, but one, or possibly two, names.
Of course, I could not be expected to accept names suggested on the spur of the moment but if my hon. friends have certain individual names in mind and will submit them to me without delay, then between now and the Committee stage I am open to consider whether those gentlemen have the necessary qualifications and are prepared to render the very onerous service which is implied; and in the event of my being satisfied on these points I would incorporate them in the list in Committee. I am not prepared to go further. I could not possibly accept any proposal which would have the effect of casting a slur on the way the present Members of the Board have discharged their duties, nor of making so great a change as drastically to alter the personnel of the board.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I put the hon. Gentleman a question as to how decisions about remitting these loans are arrived at, and I would like him to give me an answer.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: It is done in the ordinary business way. How does an ordinary man who is looking over his book debts arrive at the conclusion that it is no good keeping certain names on his list? He comes to the conclusion that it is out of the question that he will ever get the money, and therefore he strikes them off; and I think that is what is done here.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Do I understand that no remuneration whatever is paid to the members of this Board?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: No remuneration of any kind.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I would like to say a word——

Mr. WISE: May I put a question arising directly out of the statement——

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise) has already spoken and interrupted at least once. Mr. Womersley!

Mr. WISE rose——

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I called on Mr. Womersley.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: In reply to the criticisms of the hon. Member for Silver-town (Mr. J. Jones), I would like to say that I have had some little experience of dealing with this board. I am doubtful whether the West Ham municipal council have ever made an application to this board. The board were not set up to deal with great municipalities like West Ham and Grimsby, which can go into the open market and get money on better terms than they would from this board and it seems out of the question for the representative of a district which has never applied to the board to criticise them in this way. The criticism levelled at the board by local authorities has been rather on the ground that they have been too careful of the national interests and the national money, and therefore I am rather astounded to see this list of bad debts to be wiped off, knowing how careful the board have been about not lending to local authorities unless good and sufficient security could be offered.
I am in thorough agreement with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury about the personnel of the board. No Members of Parliament are serving on it, and it cannot be said that the members have been appointed for political motives. They have been appointed for their special knowledge of the subject. We have been told that they receive no remuneration for their services, and therefore they are doing just as great a public service on behalf of the community as are Members of Parliament. The hon. Member for Silvertown said the Members had been placed on the board simply because of the accident of birth or because of their cheque books. I join issue with him. I say they have been appointed on account of their special knowledge. Would he agree that one of these gentlemen should be appointed to be a bricklayer in preference to a Member of his own union? I am sure he would not. Even if the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) were to apply for the job——

Mr. J. JONES: On a point of Order. I do not mind being misrepresented, but I object to what I said being twisted round so as to give it a totally different meaning. I did not say these gentlemen were appointed to this board because of the accident of birth or their possession of cheque books. I said there were certain Members of this House who had got here because of their cheque books, because we have seen nothing else of them.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: If I misunderstood the hon. Member I am very sorry, but I certainly understood him to say that certain members of the board had been appointed not because of their ability but on account of other considerations. If that is not so, what is the objection of hon. Members opposite to the members of this board? Do they say the members are not competent? If they put forward that argument, it has been dissipated into thin air by the statement of the Financial Secretary. My experience of the board has shown me that they are men who have public service uppermost in their mind, and these criticisms are quite out of the way. If it be possible to add the names of any men who have an expert knowledge on these questions of finance, I think the Financial Secretary would be quite wise to accept them,
but for goodness' sake do not let us introduce the political element, or we shall made it very difficult indeed for the board to function at all. I hope hon. Members opposite will bear in mind that certain people criticise the board because they have not granted loans, not being satisfied with the security; but, from the point of view of the taxpayers, if it has erred at all, it is on the side of safety first, and perhaps it is desirable that that should be so.

Mr. WALLHEAD: My criticism is that the losses mentioned in this schedule have been due to advances made to private persons. There is no loss on a loan given to a public administrative body like a town council or an urban district council.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: That does not alter my arguments that these people have been scrupulously careful for many years past. There has been a great upheaval in financial matters. Between 1920 and 1922 we reached the peak of speculation and inflation, and since then we have come down rapidly. I think the record of this board is a very good one. It has adopted the policy of safety first. There are cases in which the board would have been justified in granting the loan under the powers which they possess, and they have not done so. In some of those cases it has turned out that they have acted in the best interests of the nation and the taxpayers as a whole. I resent the criticism of the personnel of the board, because I am satisfied that there is no political bias whatever. Those who appoint the members of the board consider each appointment on its merits, and they bear in mind their capacity to deal with questions affecting the nation as a whole, as well as the interests of those who wish to borrow money. If we could only get a little closer working between the various departments concerned and those who put forward unemployment relief schemes it would be better for those who are anxious to see something substantial done to re-leave those who are out of work.
The trouble is that many of the smaller authorities are not able to go into the money market to raise a loan. They go through the process of getting permission to borrow and asking for assistance from the Unemployment Grants Committee.
After that they have to appeal to the board for the amount of the loan that they require. There is need for some official who can take up cases, and work them right through the Departments. Under the present system, the applications for loans go through a number of Departments, and they are sent backwards and forwards until the schemes are approved. The larger authorities can borrow money in the open market, and then they can get on with the business. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) was Lord Privy Seal he often complained about the delays which occurred before schemes for the relief of unemployment were approved.
If we could possibly arrange for a particular official to see these schemes put through all the Departments, I am sure we should get on much more quickly. I am not complaining that there is any obstruction. All these local authorities work under regulations, and they have to go through all the formalities which have been laid down by this House. If we could arrange a short cut through the various Departments, I am certain that would be in the best interests of all those who desire to relieve unemployment. The difficulties that face the small local authorities in borrowing money in the open market are very great, and the only chance they have of borrowing money is through this particular board. That is why I am anxious that the Second Reading of this Bill should be passed, and I hope the Financial Secretary will bear in mind the suggestion which I have put forward to expedite unemployment schemes when applications are made for a loan.

Mr. SIMMONS: It is quite true that some slight concessions have been promised, but they are not sufficient to satisfy hon. Members on the Labour benches, and we do not believe that what is proposed will have very much effect in the direction of assisting the solution of the unemployment problem. The Financial Secretary has dealt very briefly with this Bill, and we are expected to open our mouths and shut our eyes, and take what the Government chooses to give us. We strongly object to the inferiority complex on our Front Bench. We
have been told that the members of this board are not selected for their political opinions, but it has already been admitted that not a single Labour representative is to be found among them, and that is tantamount to saying that there is no Labour or Socialist person who is capable of serving upon this board. I say, quite frankly, that up and down the country, we have on our local authorities people holding Labour and Socialist views serving on finance committees, and upon other important public bodies, who are discharging their duties with as much ability as the people of the class who have been appointed on this board.
It is all very well for hon. Members to talk about the disinterested service of the members of this board. Labour and Socialist representatives give their services on our local government bodies because they desire to serve the public, but the people who are giving their services on the body appointed under this Bill will do so because they want to help the class to which they belong. The members of this public body represent banking and the interests of their own class, and consequently they bring a bias to bear when matters come up for discussion on this board. It is all very well to say that the board cannot be altered. We all know that at the end of five years it is quite competent to clear out the lot of them, and replace them by an entirely fresh board. When you have a municipal election, one-third of the members have to retire from the borough council. I know what happened in Sheffield when the Labour majority was returned—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is quite outside the scope of this Bill.

Mr. SIMMONS: Because people hold an office for a period of years that is no reason why they should continue to hold the same office after there has been a change in the administration. In Sheffield, the change of administration meant a wiping up of the whole of the retiring aldermen, and I suggest that the change of administration on the Front Bench here should mean the wiping off of at least the first name on that list—the name of a person who went out of his way to insult the working classes of this country, who went out of his way to
use against the miners stronger language than any Socialist or Labour Member would ever use against his opponents; and there are others, I dare say, who could be dealt with in the same way. I suggest that our Front Bench are too much inclined to think that the people on the other side have all the ability, and that the people on our side have none. I appeal to them to remember, when they are appointing commissions of this kind, that there are in the ranks of the Labour and Socialist movement men of as much ability as, if not more than, the kind of people to whose appointment we are asked to assent this afternoon.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Name of Borrower.
Amount of Loan.
Amount of Principal to be remitted.



£
£
s.
d.


Fraserburgh Harbour Commissioners
40,000
15,334
17
4


40,000
15,224
4
3


20,000
5,420
9
0


33,000
2,689
16
6


30,000
1,411
15
4


12,000
451
13
3


Balintore Harbour Trustees
2,000
2,000
0
0


Thurso River Harbour Trustees
13,000
13,000
0
0


Mr. Everard Collington
4,700
457
3
1


Mr. Ernest William Curtis
2,025
956
4
1


Mr. John Derry
2,775
890
16
5


Mr. William Grewcock
8,100
2,050
19
9


Mr. George Underwood Alexander Bead
1,620
247
17
8


Mr. James and Mrs. Susan Savage
2,750
434
12
11


Mr. Gavin Tudhope
4,500
1,331
3
5

(2) all arrears of interest due to the Public Works Loan Commissioners in respect of two loans of fifty thousand pounds and forty-five thousand pounds, respectively, to the Fraserburgh Harbour Commissioners;

(3) the unpaid balances of principal and all arrears of interest due to the Public Works Loan Commissioners in respect of loans to the Port Ness Harbour Trustees, the Rosehearty Harbour Commissioners, and the Dingwall Harbour Commissioners;

(4) all arrears of interest due to the Public Works Loan Commissioners and outstanding on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty, in respect of a loan of thirteen thousand pounds to the Scrabster Harbour Trustees."—(King's Recommendation signified).—[Mr. Pethick-Lawrence.]

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The explanation of what is required under this Resolution will be found in the Financial

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. Pethick-Lawrence.]

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS [REMISSION OF DEBT].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

[Mr. DUNNICO in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session relating to Local Loans, it is expedient to authorise the remission of—
(1) the principal of the several loans by the Public Works Loan Commissioners specified in the following table to the extent specified in the last column of that table, and of the arrears of interest due to the Public Works Loan Commissioners in respect of those loans:

Memorandum attached to the Bill, and in the various Tables which follow it, and, in view of the full way in which everything is there set out, I do not think it is necessary for me to make any further explanation.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I desire to ask the Minister one or two questions on this Resolution. I put to him just now two very simple questions, but he did not answer them, and I should like now to ask him how it is that we have three or four Scottish harbours which are getting tremendous remissions of debt, while it is almost impossible for any English harbour to get such remissions. It is no use saying that this is done simply in the ordinary course of public business because these debts cannot be collected.
I know that many of our West Country harbours are just as badly off, and I think we are entitled to know why it is that the harbours in this list are getting these remissions. Is it, possibly, that the Secretary of State for Scotland takes a tour round Scotland and says that this harbour and the other harbour must have a remission? I ask because I feed sure that the Secretary of State will be desirous of helping me in this matter. I am not attacking him, but we do want an explanation. I ask him partly because I have already tried and failed to get an explanation, and partly because a particular harbour in which I am definitely and clearly interested has been extraordinarily badly treated in this respect, while many other harbours in the West Country, of which I have considerable knowledge, are in a very difficult position. We get no other chance of approaching the Treasury in a friendly way, as I am doing at this moment, and asking how it is possible so to approach this body that we may get definite relief as well. If these questions can be answered for me, either by the Financial Secretary or by the Secretary of State for Scotland, I shall not oppose the Resolution.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I do not think that it rests with me to suggest to the hon. Member how he can get money remitted by the Treasury. I can only say that, if he wants any particular place to have some remission which seems to him to be in the public interest, he must make application. I cannot go beyond that. If I knew some royal road, it obviously would not be my duty to tell him what it was, but I do not know of any royal road, and, therefore, although from his own point of view I wish him well, from the point of view of the Treasury and of the public purse I am bound to with that he will not succeed in getting a remission.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Perhaps the royal road will be declared to me by the Secretary of State for Scotland, seeing that these are all Scottish harbours, and, accordingly, I would put the question to the right hon. Gentleman and ask him how it happens that all these Scottish harbours and no English harbours are included. If he will give me some idea as to how it is that they all happen to
concern his Department, I will then endeavour to let him have the Resolution. I feel sure that he can give me an answer.

Mr. W. ADAMSON: I assure the hon. Member that these remissions are not brought about by the Secretary of State for Scotland, but are given on the definite recommendation of the Treasury. The remissions have all been very carefully considered, and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has already indicated that the Public Works Loan Board are satisfied that these debts are not likely to be recovered before they are scheduled for remission. As my hon. Friend has already pointed out, a fairly long explanation is given, in the Financial Statement attached to the Bill, of the reasons why the Public Works Loan Board find it necessary to remit the debt in each of these cases. I can assure the hon. Member that not a single one of these remissions has been made without the most careful consideration and without very good reasons. I could give the reasons if it were necessary to elaborate them, but I do not think it is, and I am sure the hon. Member would not wish me to do so. I hope, because some harbour on the west coast of England has not got the remission of debt to which the hon. Member thinks it is entitled, he will not make that a reason for preventing us from getting this Resolution.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am afraid the reply of the Financial Representative of the Treasury is of such a nature that, between now and the Committee stage of the Bill, I shall have to go through these things with very great care, and may have to omit the whole of them.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

GREY SEALS PROTECTION BILL.

Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.].

Adjourned accordingly at Ten Minutes before Three of the Clock until Monday next, 30th June.